Slashdot Mirror
UK Retailer Mistakenly Sends PS Vitas, Threatens Legal Action To Get Them Back
New submitter Retron writes "The BBC brings news that British retailer Zavvi mistakenly sent out PlayStation Vitas to people who had preordered a game called Tearaway. The company is now threatening legal action against those who have kept theirs despite a request to return them. It's unclear whether the Distance Selling Act protects consumers who have mistakenly been sent an expensive item, and forums such as Eurogamer seem divided on the issue."
I'd keep it.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I do not know what UK laws are in this area, but I do know that US laws specifically state that unsolicited merchandise is legally considered a gift. Think about it: if things didn't work this way, you could wind up being billed (and having your credit report dinged) for "debts" you never agreed to! Alternatively, if companies could get away with sending you more expensive merchandise than you actually ordered and then billing you for it (or demanding, after the fact, that you take the time and trouble to send it back to them), then you'd be opening the door to merchants committing all kinds of bait-and-switch scams.
This seems to have been a genuine accident, and sucks for Zavvi, but they should not be allowed to threaten or instigate any legal action against the receivers. Even demanding the recipients mail it back with postage paid by the company is still requiring them to perform unpaid work (packaging, driving to the post office, etc.) for something they didn't do and aren't responsible for.
In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it.
I don't know if a shipping error counts as being unsolicited, but I don't think the company would have any recourse. IANAL.
In the US, you are allowed to keep anything you are sent as an "unsolicited gift".
Don't know about the UK.
(The reason for this is that before the law, companies would send people stuff they didn't order and then demand payment... often many times more than the stuff was worth... just another scummy business practice.)
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Yep, I know. I remember when the US post office used to advertise that, with an Eskimo getting a oscillating fan.
And this would count.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you'd read the law, you'd see that this isn't the case. From the relevant law, which is linked to in TFA:
24.—(1) Paragraphs (2) and (3) apply if—
(a) unsolicited goods are sent to a person (“the recipient”) with a view to his acquiring them;
(b) the recipient has no reasonable cause to believe that they were sent with a view to their being acquired for the purposes of a business; and
(c) the recipient has neither agreed to acquire nor agreed to return them.
(2) The recipient may, as between himself and the sender, use, deal with or dispose of the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him.
(3) The rights of the sender to the goods are extinguished.
Mistakes happen. They weren't expecting them so it shouldn't be too heartbreaking to return them. I'll probably get flamed for this, but you have to be one self-entitled little twerp to expect to be able to keep it. As long as Zawi pays for shipping they have every right to want them back. If you mistakenly shipped something expensive to the wrong address, would you be miffed if they refused to return it? Who wouldn't?
If the situation was reserved, say the customers received £19.99 Tearaway after ordering a £169.99 PS Vita, they would be fighting to return it.
The customers received an item that was worth more than what they paid, and are simply being greedy.
As a general rule you are not the owner of property sent to you in error.
If someone _deliberately_ sends unsolicited property to you, then the usual rule is this is presumptively a gift.
If someone _accidentally_ sends property to you then the usual rule is that ownership is not transferred automatically.
However if you reasonably assumed it was a gift then you might have lost it or sold it thinking it was your own, and since the error was not yours, you would not be liable. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to think a store would send you a video game system for no reason. And a reasonable person who orders something from a store, and recieves the wrong product would first suspect an error on the stores part. If you contact the store and they say "nope it is a gift!" then you can keep it.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
The best thing for Zawi to do is probably just call it a loss. They have done the chest thumping and legal threats and probably have gotten most units back. Going to court would probably cost more time and money than the value of the PS. Offer anyone that did send their units back a gift card to reward honesty for a decent amount so no one would think that they would have been better off keeping the PS. The next step is getting your shit together so that it doesn't happen again.
The law used to be that you couldn't refuse to return mistaken deliveries BUT you didn't need to actively do it. It was sufficient to say 'come collect it', give a reasonable deadline and wait. If they missed the deadline and you didn't play hide&seek you got to keep it.
I doubt distance selling regs has changed that.
Hmm, looks like to me that section (c) would apply. So, unless the customer said they were being returned, no legal obligation to do so.
You need sections (a), (b), AND (c) to apply.
UK law is clear in that ownership has not transferred to the recipients and that the items should be returned.
I think in this type of situation, it's a reasonable expectation that the recipient should return the PS Vita too. They paid £19.99 and got sent a completely different item; it isn't as if the PS Vita was priced at £19.99 in error and the company mistakenly fulfilled the order.
Sadly, I see similar situations happen all the time. Companies make a mistake with their pricing online and don't fulfil the order and the people who thought they were getting a 40" TV for £50 start talking about their "right" to buy it for that price.
It's an obvious mistake by the retailer and if their customers are being uncooperative then they have every right to pursue the legal avenue. Let's turn it around a bit: if the customers had asked to return the game they bought and accidentally sent a PS Vita to the company, would the customers be arguing that their mistake represented an "unsolicited gift"?
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
"The DSRs do not require the customer to return the goods but if the contract says the customer must return them and they do not, you can charge them for the direct cost of recovery."
Pulled from the http://dshub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/Explained (Distance selling regulations)
"In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it."
That's not quite true. You are not required to pay for un-ordered merchandise, but you are required by law to return the product if they request it. However, they are responsible for the shipping cost, and you can charge them a "reasonable" storage and maintenance feel for the period of time the product was in your custody.
For that reason, companies do not usually request their products back. It's just not worth their while. And what constitutes a "reasonable" fee can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
If people weren't divided on 'factual' statements then we wouldn't have lawyers.
Well, you live in such a world, whether you like it or not.
If the recipient honestly believes they were the victim of the company trying to get them to pay for something they did not order, they have a chance to keep the item. How many of the recipients believe that?
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
In the USA under the very poorly written laws having some like that can fall under the Computer Hacking and Unauthorized Access Laws.
or even the The Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act
"but you are required by law to return the product if they request it. "
no, you are not.
from USPS( http://about.usps.com/publications/pub300a/pub300a_tech_021.htm ) bolding done by me:
A company sends you a gift in the mail — a tie, a good luck charm, or a key chain. You didn’t order the gift. What do you do? Many people will feel guilty and pay for the gift. But you don’t have to. What you do with the merchandise is entirely up to you.
If you have not opened the package, mark it “Return to Sender.” The Postal Service will send it back at no charge to you.
If you open the package and don’t like what you find, throw it away.
If you open the package and like what you find, keep it — free. This is a rare instance where “finders, keepers” applies unconditionally.
Whatever you do, don’t pay for it — and don’t get conned if the sender follows up with a phone call or visit. By law, unsolicited merchandise is yours to keep.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Personally, unless it was a crippling blow to the company, I would have made a big fuss about how anyone that received them could keep them as gifts. It would not only reflect well on the company, but depending on how well they advertised it, and how well news agencies covered it, it could create a massive boost to sales while people order tons of items while hoping for another error to happen.
Err - no.
Money was accepted for an item to be sent to the buyer.
A different item was sent to the buyer.
The first contract has not yet been fulfilled, and the item actually delivered was a delivery in error.
As the delivery in error was not an intended delivery (the law specifically regulates spamming random products to addresses that diddn't order them - in that case they get to keep it) they have to return it.
Here in the US, in order to be considered an "unconditional gift", the shipment must be unsolicited, not just incorrect. An solicited, but incorrect shipment can be recovered by the sender in the US.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
They're not being made responsible for the error. They're being made responsible for not stealing when someone else makes an error and tries to correct it at no cost to the individual.
If I drop a £20 note, you can't pick it up and say "I'm not responsible for your error". Same here.
Placing an order is soliciting a shipment, an incorrect shipment is not unsolicited, therefore, you would not be allowed to keep the errantly-shipped PS Vita in the US. Google for the laws, because I'm too lazy to do your research for you, but they're pretty clear on what constitutes an unsolicited shipment.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yes...but is an incorrectly filled order a gift or a goof? You could claim it was an unasked gift, combined with a completely separate unfulfilled order. Good luck with that.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
In the UK and Canada they now belong to buyer
No, they don't.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Now how about (a) and (b) which would also have to be true since the word used is "and".
You have to sue them (seller) to prove that they were delivered the wrong item.
Until actual lawsuit, possession remains with the buyer.
You can send threatening lawyer letters, but they don't have to do anything until a court - not the seller - forces them to.
Which they won't.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Once merchandise is returned of course..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Suing customers is Sony Christmas tradition.
Assuming you live in the UK, and that the law says you have to send it back to them, what's to prevent the recipient from just smashing the PS Vita to bits and shipping that back? Are there any UK laws that say you are responsible for the safetly and security of unordered merchandise?
That wouldn't be the nicest thing to do, per se, but I don't see how anyone has any more responsiblity for keeping an unrequested item safe. It could also be stolen in the mean time. What then?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
"A company sends you a gift in the mail â" a tie, a good luck charm, or a key chain. You didnâ(TM)t order the gift."
That is a DIFFERENT thing. This wasn't a "gift" sent in the mail (what the law calls "unsolicited merchandise"). This was a mistake on a legitimate order (solicited merchandise).
Because it isn't "unsolicited" (something sent to you out of the blue), different laws apply. The law you cite simply does not apply to the situation here. (As long as we're talking about U.S. law... I won't speak for the laws in other countries.)
Made plane reservations for my grandparents one time to come visit us, reserving the tickets with my credit card. They instead bought train tickets, so I cancelled the reservation. The airline credited me the value of the tickets, as though I had paid for them instead of just making a reservation. I thought it was like in the Monopoly game, where "Bank error in your favor" means free money. No such luck.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Of course it is considered as an unasked for gift. If it wasn't, the mail order scam of sending out unrequested product would never have gone away. The companies that forced the law into existence would have just switched to offering some low value product at cost and shipping some other product with ridiculous markup. Thus, completely skirting the law.
I'm sorry Mr. Smith, we mistakenly sent you the $99.99 WHITE cheddar cheese log by mistake instead of the $6.99 YELLOW cheddar cheese log. Please return it immediately. Oh, it was eaten at your Christmas party? Just give us your credit card number and we can charge the extra $93.00 to your card.
Why need I stop? Nothing you've posted here is contrary to my comment. I think you may need to read it again.
P.S. -- You seem to be off, by a factor of 60, in your estimate of how long it would take you to research this. It should only take 5 minutes to find the appropriate laws, maybe another 7 to read them. Here. And the first result.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
No UK solicitor would worry about returning the console- the claimable EXPENSE of dealing with Zavvi's negligence would allow the customer to claim far more in 'handling fees' than Zavvi could possibly hope to recover from the value of the hardware. Any interaction with Zavvi over the issue is legally billable (customer billing Zavvi for the use of their time, etc).
While there is no doubt that very large errors in value (sending an item worth thousands to a customer when you meant to send an item worth tens of pounds) would be seen by courts as reasonable to resolve mostly in the retailer's favour, this will not apply to tiny amounts like the value of individual Vita bundles. Companies are EXPECTED to run their business in a competent fashion, and not expect the legal system to pick up the pieces of their uselessness.
-customers are NOT required to do any work on behalf of Zavvi over the mistake. This includes responding to emails or phone calls.
-customers are NOT required to be out-of-pocket to even the slightest degree.
-customers are NOT required to be, to any degree, sympathetic to problems that occur because of Zavvi's gross incompetence
-customers are NOT required to recognise a mistake has been made, if the goods delivered are a 'reasonable' fit to the items ordered (which in this case, interestingly, they are).
Zavvi has a right, at its own expense, to make an attempt to rectify the mistake. This pretty much, in the worst case, means cold-calling the customer, and hoping to speak to the customer (rather than another householder who has ZERO connection to the sales contract) in order to ask for the parcel back.
However, if the customer thought the delivery was legitimate (and that would be very hard for Zavvi to disprove) and disposed of the goods (say as a gift to someone) before receiving notice from Zavvi that a mistake had been made, Zavvi essentially is stuffed even in the case of cold calling the customer.
For the customer, the safest legal play is to put the 'mistaken' product somewhere safe, ignore contact from Zavvi about the issue, and wait for Zavvi to give up (as their legal advisers will tell them they have no choice but to do). In this way, IF zavvi attempted any legal action, the customer merely has to state that Zavvi could, at any time, at THEIR expense, have turned up in person as many times as required, until they managed to speak directly with the customer, to reclaim their Vita. The customer can then add that under no circumstances were they prepared to use any aspect or amount of their own time to remedy Zavvi's mistake, without billing that time at far more than the Vita was worth.
Worse, for Zavvi, is that the customer can actually charge storage fees for safely looking after the mistaken parcel. This is why I said at the top that no solicitor- well versed in law and billing people for every action, would return a negligently sent item worth so little.
To my American readers, I should point out that no British computer/electronics retailer ever reaches anything approaching the size of the most successful in the USA, because of the horrendous "the customer is always wrong" attitudes held by people who run such businesses in the UK. British companies love to screw any customer naive enough not to understand their legal rights, especially over returns of non-functioning goods.
PS I have actually seen the usual vile shills telling people that even if the law is on their side, they have a MORAL duty to return the goods. This in a world where companies like Zavvi, Apple, Amazon etc state that they will happily pay as little tax as possible, because of loopholes in the law, regardless of how much money they make in profits. NOBODY has any moral duty to a corporation. The ONLY reason to treat a company nicely, or forgive their idiocy, is if you are grateful they exist, and fear that if they go down the alternatives will be worse for you. Enlightened self interest, in these circumstances, and nothing else.
The story stays Zavvi says "We have tried to contact you on numerous occasions to give you the opportunity to return this item to us (at our cost and no inconvenience to yourself)."
So let's use some common sense here. Assuming they were telling the truth... if a company called me and explained the error, apologized, issued no threats, but ASKED me to send it back, offered to send me a prepaid return sticker, and offered to schedule a pickup if I didn't want to take it to a dropbox, I wouldn't fuss. To me, it would all be about the amount of work I'd have to do to return it. Make it easy for me to do, sure I'd do it.
The legal threats are stupid. Their percentage of returns acting nice will be as large or larger as the results of acting nasty. And if they take legal action they'll not only occur expenses, they'll turn every one of those customers into enthusiastic broadcasters of ill-will.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
How is the end party *responsible* in this case? If the company offered to pay for return shipping and any other expenses related to their mistake they seem to be taking responsibility to me.
Trying to pretend this is in any way similar to someone sending you a completely unsolicited product and demanding payment (vs. what it was, a customer ordering a product, getting the wrong one, and the company wanting to exchange it for the correct - and yes, less expensive - one) just seems like some bogus "slippery slope" argument justifying a personal ethical deficiency.
From the US FTC site:
Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.
Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error?
A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.
And while it's true the law is vague in the definition of "unsolicited", if you already made a contract with a seller (which is what happened) to deliver an item for payment, and the seller messed it up, good luck convincing a judge there is a distinction based on whether the seller wants to fix the mistake to honor the contract vs. the buyer...
I've had something like this happen twice. The first time a company shipped me something I ordered, and then a few days later something I didn't. I let them know, and they sent me a prepaid return sticker, and scheduled for UPS to come pick it up, they told me to just leave it on my porch.
No problem there, I was happy to get them their stuff back because it wasn't any issue for me. I didn't have to expend any real time and effort fixing their mistake. A quick e-mail to them, and then slap a label on it (they actually mailed me one) and drop the box on my porch.
Another time an eBay seller fucked up an order bad. They shipped some fairly cheap headphones I had purchased to a guy, and instead shipped me two McIntosh monoblock tube amplifiers worth about $10,000 each that he had purchased. I was a little perplexed by these massive 100 pound each boxes when I expected headphones
Well they were annoyed at me that I didn't refuse the delivery "like I should have" (I wasn't there, the apartment manager accepted packages for us) and wanted me to take them to UPS and ship them to the other buyer. They said they'd refund the shipping charge when he got the amps. I told them to fuck off, they could send me shipping labels and have them picked up, or go away. The were butthurt about that, but finally agreed.
So depends on how the company has acted. If they truly are making it no hassle on the part of the customer: As in willing to send them a shipping label (and if necessary a box) and schedule a pickup, then ok. However if they expect the customer to go out of their way to fix the fuckup, then no. Sometimes what they mean by "no inconvenience" is really "We want you to deal with the hassle of a return, then we'll refund you the money for shipping later, maybe."
When they are the ones that fuck up, it is their duty to make it right, with as little impact on you as possible.
vita is worth more than 30 bucks.
heck, not worth my time to ship it back for 30 bucks.
furthermore I'd reckon it's illegal for them to threaten with legal action(so that they wouldn't just ship wrong products allover just to sue people).
they still need to send the original(and charged for) order though.. what they send extra is their own business.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it.
You'd be better off making the install screen prompt the user to complete a payment through Paypal before activating it.
Again; I would ask you to point out what section of the law says you have to return it if requested. HINT: There is no requirement for you to return the item if requested: the recipient of unordered merchandise may retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender
Now... what's more likely if you ordered something online; You agreed to a sales contract in the process of checking out. The sales contract probably says something about how errors are to be handled, and you may have some civil liability incurred under the contract, if there is an error, and you under the sales contract you agreed to adhere to at the time of purchase, are expected to assist with correcting the errors, by making the other party whole.
Recovering the merchandise aside, can the company claim this as a loss for tax/insurance purposes?
Placing an order is soliciting a shipment, an incorrect shipment is not unsolicited
The law says nothing about unsolicited shipments. The law specifically mentions unordered items and states that the recipient has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender
PERIOD.
The sender's only real chance of arguing otherwise, is with a sales contract completed by the recipient that incorrect items were sent to; spelling out obligations of the recipient, if errors are made.
No, YOU stop. Intentionally being obtuse isn't a defense under any law I've ever seen.
You are cherrypicking answers from a Q&A site put up by the FTC; this is the FTC's consumer-friendly website, not the legal code -- the FTC's job is to enforce the law, not write it. They make this recommendation: the FTC does not say you are obligated to do so.
The very first QA says
Offering to return erroneously received item is a very sensible recommendation, by the way; yes you should offer to return the item sent in error -- it is the right thing to do the law does not require this. The retailer may also not be inclined to do any more business with you, and it may adversly affect you in other ways; if you won't work with them to correct the error! If the dollar value is high enough, there is also the chance the retailer could seek damages in court, under the sales agreement (Not as theft though).
How would you like it if you accidentally mailed an overpayment for an item and the company said "too bad, we're keeping the extra money, you gave it to us"?
People usually pay by credit card. If they refuse to return the overpayment, you can setup a chargeback with the credit card company.
If you mailed a check; and the vendor declined to return the overpayment, you can actually sue for it, but it is unlikely that you are going to write out a check for too large amount -- and be upset when they deposit it; it's a lot harder to make an error there, where you had to write out the amount twice and sign it!
It's much easier for someone to accidentally stuff the wrong thing in a box.
I've lived in Germany for a while now ... Overall America's system is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
Support the country you live in, or live in the country you support.
Or live in the country in which you wish to foment revolution.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Issue is it would then render the law null and void in it's effectiveness as you could order some $10 off Etsy and the person mail you something worth $1000 and do the scam on you.
The law is intended to provide a fair and moral framework for humans to live by
Considering the state of the world, I don't think that's working out too well.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
my understanding is that there used to be a pretty prevalent scam in which a firm would send something of value unsolicited and then bill the recipient. When the recipient did not pay, the firm would harrasss the recipient and do whatever nasty thing they could to get the money. If you were someone that sold stuff like that from Fingerhut, i.e. marking up just 10000%, one could get a pretty penny if even 10% of the recipients were extorted to pay.
To combat this, in the US there are laws, as cited below, that pretty much give huge right to the recipient of unsolicited merchandise. There are two exceptions. Merchandise that is sent for inspection is to be returned. For instance I used to get calls from firms that would offer to send me stuff for free and if I liked it they would then bill the company. The assumption was that the purchasing department in a moderately sized organization would pay for stuff management wanted without too much checking or hassle. The law still provides a level of protection as the merchandise can be returned and the time frame is not set in stone.
My feeling is that, at least in the US, the recipient should be protected. Look at it this way. I order a box of pens from office depot. Instead of pens, the send me a printer. It could be that someone in my office steals it. Am I then liable for the printer?
Yes, you're liable. The difference is that this isn't unsolicited merchandise, this is incorrectly shipped merchandise in response to a solicitation. Rather than meeting the unsolicited merchandise law, this would fall squarely under the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in some form in every state. Specifically, this is a shipment by the seller of non-conforming goods, which the seller promptly identified. Under UCC 2-508, the seller can notify the buyer of his intention to cure and make a conforming delivery or repudiate the contract. In such cases, the buyer may charge reasonable storage or disposal fees, but that's it.
Consider: the UCC, as well as contract law in general and dating back hundreds of years, was written to protect the ordinary dealings of merchants with each other and merchants with the public. Mistakes happen, everyone knows that... A business shouldn't be unreasonably punished because of a mistake, or else, out of fear of such mistakes, transactions grind to a snail's pace with everyone seeking reassurances in triplicate of every maneuver. This is actually one of the first things they drum into us in contract law that is different from the layman's expectation: normally, we think of breaching a contract as being a terrible thing that leaves you liable to all sorts of bad results; in reality, breaching a contract is merely an economic decision, and the courts will not bankrupt a company in punishment for making a sound business decision of terminating a losing contract, particularly if the other side knows that there's something inequitable. Essentially, tort or criminal law is all about "you wronged me"; contract law is all about "economic efficiency" - the concept of punitive damages only exist in very, very extreme cases.
Here, the merchant is entitled to their Vitas back and owes each buyer the game, any shipping costs, and potentially even reasonable storage fees - which, for a single Vita, are going to be negligible. And this is the way it should be, unless we want every purchase that's not an in-person exchange of goods to come with ten pages of contracts to sign.
Who really cares what the law does or doesn't require?? Any decent person would return the item. And any reputable seller would obviously pay for the return shipment... And any good retailer would offer a token reward for complying with the request. End of story.
Kant: Q: If everyone did not return merchandise mistakenly mailed to them, what would happen [approx. categorical imperative]?
A: Probably the cost of shipping and retail would go up slightly to pay for more expensive insurance to account for the potential of sending the wrong item. Order processing and shipping would employer slightly higher paid people. Overall, we'd expect to see less shipping errors from all retail companies and shipment companies. Overall, a slight price increase on the cost of goods, less shipping mistakes, and not much else.
Jesus: Q: Would you like it if someone else did not send back a package to you that you mistakenly sent them [golden rule]?
A: No, that would suck.
Two different moral systems go in different directions here. Still, I think Kant would probably mail the Vita back. Nobody wants to be a dick.
--"You are your own God"--
It happened to me I ordered a accessory from an online music store, then they sent me a dozen of what I ordered. I emailed their Customer Service by (no phone # on thier site) of what happened and I'd be glad to return if they make shipping arrangements. A week goes by and no response so I send a second email and again no reply. After that I kept copies of the emails I send and kept the merchadise. I had no use for the extrass so couple years later I donated them to a local music program for kids.
If they want the item back then they need to provide postage and packaging.
And they can't expect it to be returned unopened or without scratches.
It may cost them more in handling to get the items returned than to call it a day and cut the losses.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It's interesting to see the wide variety of responses to the story. I guess the only way we'll ever know the exact legal situation is if the case makes it to court, but I'd bet that Zavvi will try anything they can to settle out-of-court in order to save themselves the chance of receiving even more bad PR.
It's one of those situations where Zavvi can't win. If they let the person keep the Vita then those who sent them back will be annoyed. If they set the legal eagles loose then it'll just generate more bad PR for them. Zavvi itself had loads of bad PR a few years ago when the original company went bust; it was one of those situations where gift cards weren't honoured during the administration period and the media was full of people moaning about the company. That didn't bother The Hut, though, who bought the rights to the name and then set up a new online shop.
FWIW, my thoughts are that it'd be pretty obvious upon opening the packaging that a Vita+game had been sent rather than just a game. As such, I'd have felt pretty guilty if I'd tried to keep the Vita and I'd hope that I would do the obvious thing and send it back, although it wouldn't be at my expense (a pre-paid Special Delivery label would be my request, as that way the returned package would be insured - sod's law says that it'd go missing on the way back and then you'd have no Vita, no game and would still have the company hounding you for its return!)
The whole sorry mess could have been alleviated by giving a gift voucher upon the return of the Vita, or some other token to say "sorry for messing you around". Doing it the way they did just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth!
The law disagrees with you. Too bad it was posted by an AC, someone could earn a bit of karma.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
disagrees with you. Too bad it was posted by an AC, someone could earn a bit of karma.
The Federal law (39 USC 3009) has precedence over state law, particularly with regards to interstate transactions; therefore, if the UCC is in disagreement, then the federal law wins.
The UCC is not law per se, but one revision or another has been adopted by each of the 50 states.
Anyways... the citation you linked to doesn't say anything about the Buyer having any liabilities it just lists some Buyer's rights; with respect to sales.
Again, the more-specific federal law, that lists more recipients' rights, wins.
It's trivial to enter the incorrect amount when doing a bank transfer (or to get the account details wrong), and good luck trying to get the money back. Sure it's easy to double check the number, but likewise it's a trivial mistake to pack a kettle lead rather than a SATA HD*, but it's easy for the packer to double check the consignment slip. Put simply, it was a mistake, and the GP is correct, it's hypocritical to expect money back when you make a mistake, but want to keep things when they make a mistake.
* eBuyer sent a courier to collect the kettle lead (confused them no end when they wanted the S/N on it). If I were more unethical, it'd be a great scam - order something expensive, complain they sent a kettle lead, get an unused kettle lead (we can trade in them), send it back and get 2nd shiny thing**
** Obviously will only work if you order a small shiny thing - in my case it came in a jiffy bag and a colleague signed for it, so it *could* have contained a HD. If you order a computer, they'll be able to tell from the original package size.
They log and track all serial numbers for all devices sold, and they exercise especial care to track high value merchandise.
Clearly they didn't log S/N, otherwise the packer would have been informed that they packed the wrong thing. In this case it sounds like the packer looks at the slip and picks something off the shelf and shoves it in a box. In an ideal world, the packer would scan the slip, and then scan each of the items being put in the box, the scanner would then warn if an incorrect item was selected, or if something was left out before allowing the box to be shipped.
... because this was in the UK.
Furthermore, if I was selling a really expensive TV and a cheap DVD on eBay and got the addresses mixed up, I'd really hope the guy who mistakenly received the TV would be decent enough to send it back (at my expense) and not try to hide behind some "finder's keepers" law. The day everyone screws common decency and just follows the letter of the law as long as it benefits them, then we are truly lost as a society.
Send it back.
Parent and GP, you are aware that this is a case in the UK, not Americaland that we're talking about?
Once I was waiting for a flight in the Atalanta airport. I was walking around and eventually sat down at my terminal, where I discovered a MAC notebook (this was in 2008 or 2009 I think). No one was there to claim it, and I assumed that if I took it to the lost and found, then someone would take it. I was faced with someone else's loss, regardless it appeared. So I figured it was mine for the taking, and it was. So I put it in my bag with my other laptop. Now at this point, I felt bad, as if I should do whatever was in my power to get this back to the unlucky fool. So I was going to look in the thing and see if I could get enough info to figure out who's it was. I looked a little bit right there, but didn't conclude anything reliable. I put it back in my bag and would simply look more in depth later. About 10 minutes later, a girl came out of the terminal exit, with a desperate look on her face, and looking around the area where I was. I asked her if she was looking for a mac notebook, and she said, "yes!" I opened my bag and handed it to her. She gave me a look of disgust and hurried back to her plane, no "thank-you", nothing. She likely felt that I was in the wrong for attempting to "steal" it. I didn't care. She got her stuff back and that was what I wanted to happen.
I sleep really good at night.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Which part of:
do you interpret as asking for payment and not arranging for return?
In Finland if you receive item you did int order, its yours to keep. Its sellers responsibility to make sure they ship right stuff to customers. If they want it back well that up to negotiation. Want something i now own, well give me something i think is worth it in return.
The Federal law (39 USC 3009) has precedence over state law, particularly with regards to interstate transactions; therefore, if the UCC is in disagreement, then the federal law wins.
UCC isn't state law, in fact, as you state after this quote, UCC isn't law at all, so of course USC trumps it; however, Federal law never trumps state law. When a transaction takes place fully within the confines of a state, state laws, where they exist, apply; when a transaction involves parties in multiple states, the more restrictive law wins in all cases. What that means is that Federal law does certainly apply, but where state laws are more restrictive, those parts of state laws also apply. Since most states have adopted UCC, thereby writing their own laws based on it, UCC is, by way of those laws, law on most stated, and the parts of it that are more restrictive than Federal laws do trump Federal laws. It is only when the laws disagree (e.g. one requires something that the other forbids) that Federal laws (and international treaties, for that matter) automatically win. If the buyer and seller both reside in the same state and the item was shipped directly (e.g. from within that same state), Federal law can pretty much go fuck itself.
Anyways... the citation you linked to doesn't say anything about the Buyer having any liabilities it just lists some Buyer's rights; with respect to sales.
You are 100% absolutely correct on this point; you simply fail to understand the implications. The buyer has the right to accept (as in "I'm okay with this instead of that, let's settle up on any balance") or reject (as in "I don't want this. send me a shipping label and I'll return it") all, or part, of any incorrect shipment. Since that part is more restrictive than Federal law, it most certainly does apply if any party to the transaction resides in a state that has adopted that UCC recommendation as law. I believe there is a Federal law stating that the state laws of any state involved in the transaction, further detailing that the act of transporting goods through a state counts as involving that state, apply, as well; since most states have adopted UCC, in one form or another, it's a safe bet that it applies to the vast majority of interstate transactions.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I have no idea what half of you are talking about. This is a simple RMA thing.
You order 2x4GB of RAM and they send you 2x8GB of RAM, what do you do?
These guys didn't get a product out of the blue, their order was filled incorrectly.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Uniform Commercial Code, while not law itself, which has been incorporated into the laws of most US states, disagrees with you. That link is for Ohio, just one of many states which have incorporated UCC into its laws; see also: Maine, South Carolina, Nebraska, and Google, if you care for a more complete list (HINT: Louisiana is the only state that has not adopted UCC article 2, which applies here).
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Wouldn't this more likely fall under contract law? Assuming that the seller had the buyer agree to some sort of terms and conditions, likely including a 'if we send you the wrong shit, give it back' sort of condition, and by giving them money, you agree to said terms and conditions?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
The law isn't the issue here---and the way the law reads, it doesn't apply anyway. Someone sent something your way by accident. It's not much different than if a bank plopped $1,000,000 in your checking account by accident, or if the electric company accidentally charged you too little or too much one month. Mistakes suck, but they don't entitle you to exploit them over it. In the same way the bank would get its money back (somehow), they have a right to get back a Vita sent to you in error.
I'd expect the company to pay for shipping to get their hardware back---and they'd have to expect lots of opened boxes along the way, but assuming that's no problem, anyone who kept the Vita is being selfish and asking for trouble. Mistakes happen...maybe one day when our computer overlords manage all purchasing, orders, and shipments, errors will be eliminated from society and this will never happen again. Maybe.
I once knew a person like you, a most entitled little piece of shit who never did anything for anyone ever. And he couldn't figure why he couldn't hang on to a good job. Because NOBODY liked him, so at the first opportunity he got fired not because of cost cutting but simply because nobody wanted his odious ass around.
Enjoy your dead end life.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Elsewhere in the thread, the example was used of a delivery of a medium shirt instead of a large, to show the absurdity of the idea of keeping the medium *and* demanding the originally ordered large, or keeping the medium *and* disputing the credit card charge. Yes, that would be absurd, but it would also be absurd for the shirt company to contact the buyer afterward and *insist* that the medium be returned for exchange for a large, even if it turned out the medium was acceptable.
In UK Law you have an absolute right to keep unsolicited Goods and are under no legal obligation to return them.
the more restrictive law wins in all cases.
In this case, when the federal law says the recipient may use or dispose of as they see fit; this overrides any state requirement to the contrary.
Federal law never trumps state law.
Wrong. See the supremacy clause.
It is only when the laws disagree (e.g. one requires something that the other forbids) that Federal laws (and international treaties, for that matter) automatically win.
The paragraph immediately preceding your selective quote:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state .
Since the relevant Federal law does not fully address what an "unwanted shipment" is, it is not in disagreement with state laws based on UCC Article 2 and, therefore, does not trump them. IANAL, but the attorney 2 offices over, who agrees with me on this point, is.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So you like dishing it out even when undeserved but are not willing to follow through? So you do not wish to take responsibility for your actions?